Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T03:38:05.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Response to and Sorption Characteristics of Nicosulfuron and Primisulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Karen M. Novosel ,
Karen A. Renner ,
James J. Kells  and
Andrew J. Chomas
Karen M. Novosel
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
James J. Kells
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Andrew J. Chomas
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nicosulfuron and primisulfuron are sulfonylurea herbicides that may persist in the soil and injure sensitive rotational crops such as sugarbeet. Studies were initiated to measure sugarbeet response one and two years after application of 70 and 140 g/ha of nicosulfuron and 40 and 80 g/ha of primisulfuron to corn. Nicosulfuron did not injure sugarbeet one or two years after application. In contrast, sugarbeet yield was reduced one year after application of 40 and 80 g/ha of primisulfuron. Injury was visible two years after application of 80 g/ha primisulfuron but this did not cause a yield reduction. In greenhouse studies, the concentration of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron that reduced sugarbeet growth by 50% were determined for six soils. Primisulfuron reduced sugarbeet growth more than nicosulfuron on four of six soils indicating greater potential for sugarbeet injury from primisulfuron. Sugarbeet response was highly correlated with soil organic matter content (R2 = 0.88). The sorption coefficients, Kd values, for nicosulfuron were 0.30 to 2.58 and the Kd values for primisulfuron were 0.76 to 3.47. Primisulfuron Kd values were higher than those of nicosulfuron on four of five soils indicating stronger affinity of primisulfuron for soil sorptive sites. The Kd values for both herbicides indicate low overall sorption. The greater sugarbeet injury observed in the field from primisulfuron is not due to greater availability of primisulfuron compared to nicosulfuron.

Keywords

Nicosulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbony]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamideprimisulfuron, 2-[[[[[4,6-bis (difluoromethoxy)-2-pyrimidinyl]amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl) benzoic acidcorn, Zea mays L.sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L. ‘MonoHy E-4.’Herbicide carryoverpersistencesorption coefficientZea mays.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 484 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Beckie, H. J. and McKercher, R. B. 1990. Mobility of two sulfonylurea herbicides in soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 38:310–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Beyer, E. M., Duffy, M. J., Hay, J. V., and Schlueter, D. D. 1987. Sulfonylurea Herbicides. Reprinted from Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action, Vol 3. Marcel Dekker, Inc. p. 119–189.Google Scholar
3. Blair, A. M., Martin, T. D., Walker, A., and Welch, S. J. 1989. Measurement and prediction of chlorsulfuron persistence in soil following autumn and spring application. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. 9:1121–1126.Google Scholar
4. Borggaard, O. K. and Streibig, J. C. 1989. Chlorsulfuron adsorption by selected soil samples. Acta Agric. Scand. 39:351–360.Google Scholar
5. Borggaard, O. K. and Streibig, J. C. 1988. Chlorsulfuron adsorption by humic acid, iron oxides, and montmorillonite. Weed Sci. 36:530–534.Google Scholar
6. Brown, H. M. 1990. Mode of action, crop selectivity, and soil relations of the sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 29:263–281.Google Scholar
7. Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 1993. Herbicide carryover to sugarbeet and other crops. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 50:116–118.Google Scholar
8. Dexter, S. T., Frakes, M. G., and Snyder, F. W. 1967. A rapid and practical method of determining extractable white sugar as may be applied to the evaluation of agronomic practices and grower deliveries in the sugarbeet industry. J. Am. Soc. Sugarbeet Technol. 14(5):434–454.Google Scholar
9. Mersie, W. and Foy, C. L. 1985. Phytotoxicity and adsorption of chlorsulfuron as affected by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33:564–568.Google Scholar
10. Nicholls, P. H. and Evans, A. A. 1987. The behavior of chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron in soils in relation to incidents of injury to sugarbeets. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. 6:549–556.Google Scholar
11. Shea, P. J. 1986. Chlorsulfuron dissociation and adsorption on selected adsorbents and soil. Weed Sci. 34:474–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Smith, A. E. and Hsiao, A. I. 1985. Transformation and persistence of chlorsulfuron in prairie field soils. Weed Sci. 33:555–557.Google Scholar
13. Stevenson, F. J. 1972. Organic matter reactions involving herbicides in soil. J. Environ. Qual. 1:333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Thirunarayanan, K., Zimdahl, R. L., and Smika, D. E. 1985. Chlorsulfuron adsorption and degradation in soil. Weed Sci. 33:558–563.Google Scholar
15. Wiese, A. F., Wood, M. L., and Chenault, E. W. 1988. Persistence of sulfonylureas in Pullman clay loam. Weed Sci. 2:251–256.Google Scholar